Reflection and Self-deception

People go about their life, never questioning, never reflecting on the source from where they came. For many, the formulation of God as a super divinity overflowing with answers is enough to assuage the task of inquiry. However, these formulations, whether belief or superstition or paradigm, need to be traced. An origin must be uncovered. As something, we do not sprout from nothing. We should assume that thoughts, a product of natural processes, follow the same principled behavior as other matter. No matter is created or destroyed, but constantly transfers and transforms. Thoughts and beliefs have a source, and if one should ever wonder where they are going, they should ask from where they came.

Perhaps we believe that history is irrelevant, that our creative intuitions are endowed with insightful possibility that supersede all the constraining forces of developmental and environmental influence. Presuming that the aim (Intention) of life is the reconciliation of truth and belief, we would never question whether our methods of investigation were faulty. If they were, they would continue leading us astray. We would continue carrying on, simply manifesting evidence from the justification of these beliefs. Of course, it is vitally important that the clarification of aims (intentions) is laid out before we question the utility of beliefs. No one would doubt that beliefs are justifications of desire (intention), and that if desire were grounded in pleasure, one would adopt terribly disjunctive beliefs with respect to truth and natural process.

It is then necessary that self deception and disillusionment be confronted and explored. If you find yourself resisting to the possibility of being wrong, you can be sure you are deceived. The terrible thing about self-deception, which keeps most everyone blindly steeped in their false knowledge, is that it is the only deception that covers up its tracks. This is why we must retrace the origins of belief, so as to prevent the weeds of corruption from choking the breath of life.

The whole notion of retracing steps is metaphorical for serious general reflection. Reflection, as introspection, is maintaining two separate concepts while simultaneously weighing their congruency to current understanding as they relate to an intentional aim for truth. Truth must be naked, exposed, stripped from bias and faulty intention. Inquiry, precise questioning, facilitates this divestment by removing the inconsistencies.

The nature of reflection comes to life when we consider the word reflection. A reflection is a reproduction of something, a giving or turning or casting back. The most obvious example of reflection in action is that of mirror. The reflection that occurs as introspection functions similarly, but with thoughts.

Concepts[1] used for reflection are recalled from memory. Even the act of acknowledging the present removes one from the present. Being conscious of oneself in the present requires entering a state of direct recall where we access memories as fast as they occur.

The idea of reflection as a mechanism for discovering truth lies in its ability to compare, contrast, and weigh the significance of various memories. However, these memories are biased in their very nature. They were experienced and stored under assumptions that the operating perceptual framework accurately processed demands and information that served the intention for truth. This overlooks natural and psychological concerns that serve to misconstrue the nature of events, your response to those events, and, as a result, your memory of those events.

Provided that a consistent perceptual framework is employed during the formation of memories, reflection offers to illuminate the result of causes by examining their effects. A past memory may yield evidence that an action or cause took place. Upon reflection with present circumstances, it is possible to arrive at knowledge of the consequences of that action and deduce certain effects.

One may argue that using creativity to generate new possibilities is enough to aid in the development of knowledge. This implicitly infers truth as a relative fixture hinged on fabricated beliefs.  If truth is to be conceived as inherently immutable, it would follow that the veracity of truth lies in its resiliency. It is not a normalized ideal sprung from an assorted synthesis of competing intentions. Such ideals are evidenced as cultural ethics, or agreements and compromises, which are constantly deluged with the tides of change.  The enduring endorsement of the ideal resides in their ability to satisfy the appetites of the broadest spectrum of human demands.  As a result, one cannot simply dismiss the past. Its exploration is vital for hewing the knowledge of truth.

Supposing reflection is the method for establishing true knowledge, we can derive a general principle that might be applied to the investigation of origins in general. The idea of reflecting, of recalling for observation, contains an inherent principle of ‘going back’, residing within the prefix re-.

This principle of going back as a way to investigate truth and belief can be applied to adjust intentionality and verify beliefs. (This allows for the correction of life’s course so to ensure that origins and future (present intention) can reconcile a coherent pursuit.

Assuming that investigations yield observance to cause and effect across every physical medium, can we not extend this notion of cause and effect to the rise of mind, or reflective consciousness itself? Would this task overlook the embodiment of reflection contained in its function?